Tackling Islamic Extremism in India - 2

Locked
Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Post by Vikas »

On December 23, 1926, Swami Shraddhanand was murdered by one Abdul Rashid. Rashid was sentenced to death and hanged in due course and the funeral procession was joined by some 50,000 Muslims. Gandhi called Rashid "a brother, I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami's murder... he has left all the lessons of peace written in his blood".
As much as I respect him and hope these statements have been taken out of context, but If whatever they attribute to Mahatma Gandhi is true,
and this is what he really meant, I feel pathetic to call him father of our nation.
This is the same person who 5 years down the line refuse to utter even a single good word about Bhagat singh,Rajguru and Sukhdev.
sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Post by sanjaychoudhry »

VikasRaina wrote:
On December 23, 1926, Swami Shraddhanand was murdered by one Abdul Rashid. Rashid was sentenced to death and hanged in due course and the funeral procession was joined by some 50,000 Muslims. Gandhi called Rashid "a brother, I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami's murder... he has left all the lessons of peace written in his blood".
As much as I respect him and hope these statements have been taken out of context, but If whatever they attribute to Mahatma Gandhi is true,
and this is what he really meant, I feel pathetic to call him father of our nation.
This is the same person who 5 years down the line refuse to utter even a single good word about Bhagat singh,Rajguru and Sukhdev.
I read about Gandhi's philosophy and his behaviour. I now consider him a psycho or a man faking wisdom who did immense damage to our civlisation and cause. The more I read about him, the more disgusted I feel.

His petty fads (goat's milk, bowel movements), his personal jealousies and favouratism (promoting Nehru fanatically while banishing Subhas Bose from Congress), his hypocricies (refusing to allow pencellin injection to be administered to his wife who died but later he himself had no compuction in taking the injection to save himself), his total and utter disregard for the suffering of people he was leading and his fanatical support for Muslim fundamentalists and bigots (calling them his blood brothers all the time) and so on. (Every Muslim who murdered a Hindu mysteriously became his "brother.")

If you really ask me, he was just a pretender to saint hood. Saints should be judged by the effect of their teachings on the lives of their followers. I am sorry to say, his teachings and directions brought horrifying misery and destruction to his Hindu followers.

Have you read about what actually happended to Hindu villagers who threw their arms in the well on his instigation and later they were surrounded by Muslim mobs in the njght. The gory details will make you vomit. One man the morning after the massacre lifting the dead body of his son in his hands, told reporters: "Take him to Gandhi and tell him to drink his blood to break his fast."

The leader of the Sikhs, Master Tara Singh, was so horrifed at the massacre of unarmed villagers by Muslims, he accosted Gandhi two days before his death, and roughly told him to leave the country and go to the Himalayas. This exchange left Gandhi thoroughly shaken.

I wish this "saint" was never born.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

sanjaychoudhry wrote:I read about Gandhi's philosophy and his behaviour. I now consider him a psycho or a man faking wisdom who did immense damage to our civlisation and cause. The more I read about him, the more disgusted I feel.

His petty fads (goat's milk, bowel movements), his personal jealousies and favouratism (promoting Nehru fanatically while banishing Subhas Bose from Congress), his hypocricies (refusing to allow pencellin injection to be administered to his wife who died but later he himself had no compuction in taking the injection to save himself), his total and utter disregard for the suffering of people he was leading and his fanatical support for Muslim fundamentalists and bigots (calling them his blood brothers all the time) and so on. (Every Muslim who murdered a Hindu mysteriously became his "brother.")

If you really ask me, he was just a pretender to saint hood. Saints should be judged by the effect of their teachings on the lives of their followers. I am sorry to say, his teachings and directions brought horrifying misery and destruction to his Hindu followers.

Have you read about what actually happended to Hindu villagers who threw their arms in the well on his instigation and later they were surrounded by Muslim mobs in the njght. The gory details will make you vomit. One man the morning after the massacre lifting the dead body of his son in his hands, told reporters: "Take him to Gandhi and tell him to drink his blood to break his fast."

The leader of the Sikhs, Master Tara Singh, was so horrifed at the massacre of unarmed villagers by Muslims, he accosted Gandhi two days before his death, and roughly told him to leave the country and go to the Himalayas. This exchange left Gandhi thoroughly shaken.
I have similar views on him. His political persona and actions, that is. His personal life and his personal spiritual station, I don't know. But the de-dhimmification of India will happen only if we demolish Gandhi. Gandhi is the first one to provide a moral justificaiton and a moral framework of principles to justify Dhimmitude & passivity. Breaking the hold of Gandhi is essential. It is in Gandhi's name that Congress party rules. Others tend to ignore.

Surinder

PS: Sanjay, can you tell where the incident of throwing arms into the well happened? Punjab or Bengal? A link might help. Can you also provide link or reference fo the Tara Singh incident? (I am just curious, not that I don't trust you.)
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16267
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Post by SwamyG »

Catching up on material I did not read....
Murugan wrote:The constantly showing of the Hindu in poor light, terming them losers, calling them buffoons and cowards will not recruit soldiers with Winning spirit in Kailashpati’s army. Nobody wd like to join you if you constantly show them in poor light and you yourself is learning and had very limited exposure of the society and country and her history.

Better instill a sense of confidence in the people whom you would like to join you and appreciate your ideology. Reminding them that you are not that sheep but a lion, you can roar, your forefathers roared and charged and chased. You CAN. You MUST and You WILL.
When a person feels s/he has been wronged, the person springs into action. The person needs to be told s/he has been wronged :-) - jolt him/her out of complacency.

I am no expert but I suspect there are both positive and negative motivational tactics. "We were great, we are great and will be great" pales when compared to "Yeah Yeah we were great, so what? Our so-called greatness was snatched, we will not be great if we don't act" in making a person act.

If pride is not shown to be at stake, action is not guaranteed. Need to reach out to "normal" folks, need to do the marketing to them and need to be done by selling them plasma TVs, Colas, Chaat, BTKWood movies, Offshore jobs etc.

Follow the pattern :-) is all I can say. Of course I might be totally wrong in my understanding, or may be I am watching too much of American Football - it is almost playoffs you know.
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16267
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Post by SwamyG »

Mangesh wrote:Without media, vote-bank, education-machinery it is impossible for a top-down approach, which is quite possible for Islamists and missionaries.
I was thinking about this issue this morning, and why I am not able to reach my younger cousins and siblings. It darned on me because they were 'educated'. They all did the shiny engineering courses (nothing against engineering degrees/engineer) and are fine and dandy in their jobs - essentially living in a cocoon. They have several things that their parents could not afford or give them. New liberalized days where anything is possible. That is the mantra. Good for them.
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16267
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Post by SwamyG »

Lest we Forget is great idea.

In case the thoughts of creating a new website lurks in any one's mind: I checked 'lest we forget dot org' is already taken. We have 'lest we forget dot in'.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Sandhya Jain in Pioneer, Dec., 2007
Émigré of Ayodhya

One of the most compelling yet overlooked themes of Hindu civilisation is that the gods themselves are prone to dislodgement from their celestial heights, to suffer exile and humiliation at the hands of upstarts who have inveigled fancy boons out of them, and then defeated them in battle. The gods return to the heavens through a long process of rebuilding their stamina, often creating new and potent energies to take on the asuric forces.

Asuras in Hindu tradition are persons or entities who do not leave space for others to live in honour, denying freedom to worship a la Hiranayakashipu, making off with other men's wives in the manner of Ravan, or defeating the gods to rule over the three worlds like Vali. The rule of dharma is restored only after much violence and bloodletting, and the defeat and decimation of the violator of dharma. Hindu bhakti is thus legitimately concerned with the power dimension of the celestial and human worlds, that is, the lawful and rightful exercise of authority to uphold the moral order.

The faux anger of our secular parliamentarians last Thursday, causing disruption of both Houses on the 15th anniversary of the removal of the Babri non-mosque, which in terms of Islamic theology 'ceased to be' due to decades of non-worship, demonstrates the Indian elite's continuing discomfort with the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Sadly, after December 6, 1992, the orchestrated anger of intellectuals, activists, and politicians, the complicit silence of the economic elite, the riots that broke out in some parts of the country, not to mention an unsympathetic judiciary and cold-feet developed by leading players, forced the movement into an eerie limbo.

Mercifully, since then, the lengthening shadow of Islamic jihad worldwide, coupled with an increasingly unmasked face of Christian evangelism in India (though still hiding behind the façade of human rights), has once again placed the issue of the civilisational base of Indian nationhood firmly at the centre of the political agenda. The re-Hinduisation of the polity is now a civilisational imperative. The distinguished journalist, late Girilal Jain, suggested that the proper translation of Hindu rashtra is Hindu polity, not Hindu nation in a Western or theocratic sense.

Possibly this may be emerging on a limited scale in contemporary Gujarat, where the Congress has studiously avoided playing the Muslim card in the current election, and left the issue of minority interests to be handled indirectly by Congress-friendly media, Mr Narendra Modi-baiting secular-Christian activists, and externally-funded NGOs. The 2007 Gujarat election is significant because it is modern India's first election fought consciously by both sides for the majority Hindu vote.

Those embarrassed or uncomfortable with the emergence of civilisational India, those who wish to defer the decisive moment of Hindu affirmation and triumph, must now retire from the public arena, or be banished from it. It is time to separate the men from the boys. A few points are in order.

Hindus are primarily a civilisational and not a territorial people. This is to say that unlike the nomadic Jewish tribes which wrested a 'promised land' from the ruination of an extant civilisation (probably history's first genocide); early Islam which superimposed itself upon the Arab people and their holy sites; and, the Christian fathers who took over the Roman Empire, the driving impulse of the Vedic vision was not land, territory or material wealth, but a quest for harmony with the universe and consciousness regarding its divine origins.

So, though Hindus have a distinct territory in cultural, geographical and historical terms, the proper function of the state is not preservation or expansion of frontiers, but the promotion of Hindu civilisation. A legitimate Indian state must express the Hindu ethos and personality; it cannot be an impartial arbiter between communities as the British conditioned us to believe; much less can it be an instrument of offence against religious minorities, as has been the Hindu experience in Pakistan, Bangladesh and now Malaysia.

India has not discriminated against any religious group seeking its protection since the first historical refugees arrived after the destruction of the Temple of Solomon in 70 AD. Since then, we have given shelter to Christian and Muslim sects, Parsis, Bahai's and Tibetans, all fleeing persecution in different parts of the world. It is this civilisational legacy that External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee claimed was now Government policy, while assuring Parliament of protection to Bangladeshi rebel writer Taslima Nasreen.

The essential spirit of Hindu dharma is inclusivist: It seeks to abolish rather than build boundaries. Hindus do not believe in exclusion in the manner associated with the Christian West and Islam. Muslims and others have been graciously accommodated in the charmed circle of territory and their affinities with Hindus through common language(s) and blood ties generously acknowledged.

The bone of contention remains the acceptance of a common civilisational framework within which the myriad faiths and ways of life can mutually adjust themselves. Any legitimate outcome must recognise the primacy of Hindu civilisation in this land; others must seek space in its nurturing bosom. Like the Jewish community, Abraham's other children must renounce the desire to dominate this land and annihilate its native faiths and cultural traditions. Their refusal to honour the majority faith will meet increasing resentment, and place the onus of communal disharmony upon them and their rich co-religionists in other parts of the globe.

The struggle to restore the Ram Janmabhoomi to the divinity, who is also the exemplar par excellence of the Hindu moral and political universe, is central to the fight for Hindu assertion and affirmation. Its principal opponents include a West-approved intelligentsia and inimical state power; their joint strategy invokes tired clichés of majority communalism and uses judicial and quasi-judicial institutions to discredit all forms of Hindu assertion.

Indian Muslims would do well to reconsider their obedience to this game. Girilal Jain said Hindus cannot sustain anti-Muslim feelings except temporarily, under provocation; anybody who has studied the rapid fizzling out of the economic boycott of Gujarat Muslims after the 2002 post-Godhra violence would appreciate the merit of this view. Hindus have no fight with Islam, not even (past) iconoclastic Islam; Ram Janmabhoomi is intrinsically about civilisational renewal and supremacy over the destructive legacy of Lord Macaulay. Muslims may find a common cause here.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ramana wrote:Sanku, I firmly believe that beyond tit for tat is doing the right thing is the best strategy in the Prisoner's Dilemma. Because instead of being a one shot game life is a repeated game and eventually it will dawn on the other player unless they have external stimulus that doing right thing is the best strategy.
.
Thanks for the book Garu; it will take some time for me to read it.

Also; I may not have understood you here; however tit-for-tat is "Shown" to be the most optimal solution for iterated PD; that is a PD which played over and over again. So tit-for-tat is actually better for a long term rather than a one shot game. Tit-for-tat is not possible in a one shot game.

What Shiv has also shown is that Islamism will never offer a true tit; it will also offer Hudbaya or false peace or temp withdrawl.

Both the above taken into account paint a bleak picture.

The bleak picture is what I believe in.
indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Post by indygill »

It seems like that "Negationism" is the "official policy" and "Political Correctness" of modern India.


As I have always emphasized, that two institutions are very important Academics and Media. Lack of control by Hindus on both these institutions is finishing hindu society like a weasel.

How many of us know that -

In 1982 the National Council of Educational Research and Training issued a directive for the rewriting of schoolbooks. But it strongly stipulated that: "Characterization of the medieval period as a time of conflict between Hindus and Muslims is forbidden."[/

We all grew up on those books and in short we are all product of that Brain-washing. The Indian Institutions tried to raise a generation who would take “singing praises of Islamic ruleâ€
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

Johann wrote:When I look at the trend lines, in 50-75 years we will start having to worry about the soft Islamists again, as the flush of the Arab successes of the 20th century (decolonisation under nationalist pressure, oil & gas booms, etc) fade and the costs exceed the Arab world's ability to sustain such efforts.

That is when the threat will appear to be over, and Non-Muslim societies will happily de-mobilise and forget what it was all about. It has hapened so many times already.

There will never be any 'final victory' against Islamism and jihad. There can only be permanent efforts at vigilance, containment and value-centric assimilation.
Johann:

Good observations. Looking at the 50-75 year horizon, I will add one thing to your analysis (which I aggree too): Jihadi threat will increase temporarily while they try out strategies of domination and subjugation of kaafirs. But ultimately the failure of this will will demoralize the jihadis and they will retreat. The threat perception will drop and dhimmification will come back to the kaafirs. This, as you have pointed out, has happened before. BUT, something more will happen too (in my prediciton). Arab lands will descend into poverty because of either oil/gas drying up or alternative sources of energy being developed. This will plunge Arabs (especially Saudi) into a state of discord and internal strife. A large population with no skills will turn inwards in its fights. All violent movements ultimately turn inwards (including crime mafias). They center of Izlam will turn in a cesspool of conflict. This will leave the jihadist foot soldiers in the periphery (India, especially) at a loss. This will undermine their entire world-view more than simple failures of jihad. This will make this round of Izlam going to sleep different. It may actually be a fatal blow and izlam may not rise again.

Ultimately, the price of freedom from Izlamic violence is eternal vigilance. But, eternal vigilance is hard. It takes its toll.

Your take?
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

Johann wrote:It seems highly likely that Musharraf following failure at Kargil in 1999 adopted a similar model of building and sustaining an Pan-India jihadist insurgency, which he has prioritised even over Kashmir.
Johann:

Interesting. What is Musharraff's aim in making this change? Why did he change? Is he achiveing his goal?

Thanks.

Surinder
indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Post by indygill »

But ultimately the failure of this will will demoralize the jihadis and they will retreat
But history do not show that pattern

What will happen is "Mujaddid Alf Sani" will be born again. And rejuvenate pure rigid Islam again. He was considered by Iqbal and is considered by majority of Muslims in sub-continent as the "Spiritual Guardian of the Muslims" of the Sub-continent. He strongly denounced Akbar's policy of sulkh i kul ( peace with all religion).

We must learn from his role played during Mughal period especially during later part of Akbars reign when Akbar tried religious innovations especially with Islam.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Sirhindi
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Post by SBajwa »

Among his other bigotry... let me remind the forum again... Shaikh ahmad sarhindi was responsible for the martyrdom of Sri Guru Arjan Dev ji.

Here is what Dr. Sita Ram goel says

"He was always foaming at the mouth against Akbar's policy of peace with the Hindus. He proclaimed himself the Mujaddid-i-alf-i-sdni, 'renovator of the second millennium of Islam'. Besides writing several books, he addressed many letters to several powerful courtiers in the reign of Akbar and Jahangir. His MaktiibCtt-i-Imdm RabbanT have been collected and published in three volumes. According to Professor S.A.A. Rizvi, "Shariat can be fos- tered through the sword' was the slogan he raised for his contemporaries.

A few specimens should suffice to show the quality of this man's mind. In letter No. 163 he wrote: "The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims... The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in gran- deur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam."

In Letter No. 81 he said: "Cow-sacrifice in India is the noblest of Islamic practices. The kafirs may probably agree to pay jiziya but they shall never concede to cow-sacrifice."

After Guru Arjun Dev had been tortured and done to death by Jahangir, he wrote in letter No. 193 that "the execution of the accursed kafir of Gobindwal is an important achievement and is the cause of the great defeat of the Hindus."

"

And Sarhind was totally destroyed by Banda Bahadur., now MMS and Sonia are again letting the terrorists from across the border every year to have "URS" on the kabar of this bigot terrorist.

and he was called "Sufi of Naqshbandi order"
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

indygill wrote:
But ultimately the failure of this will will demoralize the jihadis and they will retreat
But history do not show that pattern

What will happen is "Mujaddid Alf Sani" will be born again. And rejuvenate pure rigid Islam again. He was considered by Iqbal and is considered by majority of Muslims in sub-continent as the "Spiritual Guardian of the Muslims" of the Sub-continent. He strongly denounced Akbar's policy of sulkh i kul ( peace with all religion).

We must learn from his role played during Mughal period especially during later part of Akbars reign when Akbar tried religious innovations especially with Islam.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Sirhindi
Indigill:

Of course, the retreates of izlam are going to be only temporary. it is a cyclical thing: when strong they will enleash violence, when faced with defeat they will retreat. The fall of Mughals with Aurangzeb, and emergence of Marathas & Sikhs, saw a retreat of Izlam. It came back with Jinnah. Afghanistan retreated after Abdali, only to come knocking again in 1980s in Kashmir. The pattern is unlikely to change unless the core of Izlam is damaged. That might happen if internecine war descends upon Arabia. That is quite likely, if it descends into chaos after the end of oil.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

SBajwa:

Sirhindi was a bigotted mean man. He pumped up Jahangir to kill and torture Guru Arjun Dev Ji. That he is a "Sufi" reminds me of Johann who wrote here on BRF, "There are sufis and there are sufis". He is popular with mainstream Muzlims is because he represented true Izlam. All he said is is aggreement with Koran/hadith/traditions of Izlam. TSP'ians agree with him. Here is a perfect thing for us kaafirs to show that Sirhindi is not at fault, Izlam is (As Shiv has suggested). Blame Izlam.

Secondly, did you read that Wikipedia article? That is obviously written by an admirer. Shows the level of accurace of Wikipedia. I wish I had the energy to go and make edits and argue.
indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Post by indygill »

SBajwa

Thanks for the insight.

Surinder

I hope people will understand role of “Sufisâ€
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, there was a quite a bit of threat that Islam would get subsumed into Hinduism as another form of worship. Sirhindi and others of his ilk worked very hard to propogate the Islamization of the new converts lest they revert. The converts were either economic (needed to earn livlihood) or forced under threat to life. No one was a volunteer to Islam.

There is a very good book by a scholar Mr. Chari on this subject. Its a must read. I'll get the title and post it here.

meanwhile try to get this
Sufi Cults and the Evolution of Medieval Indian Culture
ed., Anup Taneja
(Northern Book Centre, Delhi,
ICHR Monograph Series - 9)
Pp. viii + 328. ISBN 81-7211-145-2
Rs. 950.00
Last edited by ramana on 18 Dec 2007 23:06, edited 1 time in total.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

Indygill:

Bone chilling account of Shah Waliullah. That there is an award in him name is worse. This looks like an easy stick to beat the Dhimmis & pseud-seculars in India. This is a great thing for us to beat them with. If us kaafirs state the truth for all the great izlamic hero of India, then we will break them by their own words. This is not a opportunity to be missed (I am trying to think like Shiv). Such an excercise, if carried would leave the izlamists of India leader-less. Break their backs, i say.
indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Post by indygill »

Surinder

How would you “implementâ€
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

indygill wrote: -------------------------------------------------

According to Shah Wali-

Allah the mark of the perfect implementation of the Sharia was the performance of jihad. There were people, said the Shah, who indulged in their lower nature by following their ancestral religion, ignoring the advice and commands of the Prophet Mohammed........
Could i impose on you to cite a link?
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Post by surinder »

[quote="indygill"]Surinder

How would you “implementâ€
indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Post by indygill »

Sadler wrote:
indygill wrote: -------------------------------------------------

According to Shah Wali-

Allah the mark of the perfect implementation of the Sharia was the performance of jihad. There were people, said the Shah, who indulged in their lower nature by following their ancestral religion, ignoring the advice and commands of the Prophet Mohammed........
Could i impose on you to cite a link?
Why truth is hard to digest it???

http://www.muslimworldtoday.com/illusions.htm

He was the biggest propagator of Jihad in subcontinent or are you questioning that he was not anti-hindu? All jihads since 1731 are justified, motivated and initiated using his teachings.

One last thing Taliban also adheres to his teachings on pure Islam, jihad and kafirs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Waliullah

He worked for the revival of Muslim rule and intellectual learning in the South Asia, during a time of waning Muslim power following the death of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. Shah Waliullah urged Muslim rulers to a jihad against the Maratha and Jat Bharatpur enemies of Islam, [3] and hoped to restore the ulama's former power and influence.

He despised the divisions and deviations within Islam and its practice in the Indian subcontinent and hoped to 'purify' the religion and unify all Indian Muslims under the banner of the 'truth' (Haq).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Ahmad_Shaheed

Syed Ahmed Shaheed, was a warrior from India who under the influence of Shah Abdul Aziz, son of Shah Waliullah, toured Afghanistan and the areas occupied by the Sikhs raising the banner of Jihad and rallying the Pashtun tribes to his banner.

-----------

more good reading.

http://www.ilmkidunya.com/article/dehlavi.asp

http://www.storyofpakistan.com/person.asp?perid=P064

http://www.iiibf.org/elibrary/islamic-e ... p14-8.html
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

The more i come to know about the inspiration behind Asuric APEs ( Arabized Paki Elites ) More i feel sorry for their pathetic existence and burden on Mother Earth. Following Sirhindi, Waliilluah kind of good fellows , they have left humanity long time ago . By becoming insult and threat to human race , Bani Quraiza type punishment is justifiable . let a Pious Jew declare his judgement on them and put Panjabi Muslman on priority list for implementation. :evil:
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

indygill wrote:
Sadler wrote: Could i impose on you to cite a link?
Why truth is hard to digest it???

http://www.muslimworldtoday.com/illusions.htm

He was the biggest propagator of Jihad in subcontinent or are you questioning that he was not anti-hindu? All jihads since 1731 are justified, motivated and initiated using his teachings.

One last thing Taliban also adheres to his teachings on pure Islam, jihad and kafirs
Indygill: Sadler is a long time member of these boards and is knowlegable on the issues of Islamism, and is always willing to learn about the specific aspects of Islamism, as it applies to India.

Many on these boards have been discussing these issues for a long time now and have developed certain views based on their own readings. You are not the first one to bring the workings of Shah Waliullah to this board. While your contributions are welcome and useful to many, I am asking you to not jump to conclusions about other posters, based on a rather simple request.

No one is looking to get into a fist fight with you, so please stay 8)
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

ShauryaT wrote:
indygill wrote:
Why truth is hard to digest it???


http://www.muslimworldtoday.com/illusions.htm

He was the biggest propagator of Jihad in subcontinent or are you questioning that he was not anti-hindu? All jihads since 1731 are justified, motivated and initiated using his teachings.

One last thing Taliban also adheres to his teachings on pure Islam, jihad and kafirs
Indygill: Sadler is a long time member of these boards and is knowlegable on the issues of Islamism, and is always willing to learn about the specific aspects of Islamism, as it applies to India.

Many on these boards have been discussing these issues for a long time now and have developed certain views based on their own readings. You are not the first one to bring the workings of Shah Waliullah to this board. While your contributions are welcome and useful to many, I am asking you to not jump to conclusions about other posters, based on a rather simple request.

No one is looking to get into a fist fight with you, so please stay 8)
Jeez, i did not even realize this. I thought "Why truth is hard to digest it???" was the title of the article for the link pasted below it.

ShauryaT: Thanks for the defence.

Indygill: The request was so that i could post the link and your statements on Israel Forum. I apologise if i gave the wrong impression that i was questioning your assertions. I have often requested links to posted comments when i think they are interesting enough to be posted on similar threads on israel forum. Namaste, buddy.
indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Post by indygill »

Sadler

I appologize, since you used the word impose i thought you were picking on me. I hope no heart feelings.
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

indygill wrote:Sadler

I appologize, since you used the word impose i thought you were picking on me. I hope no heart feelings.
Not at all. I used "impose" since i was asking you to go to some effort to post the links, instead of trying (googling) to find them myself.

Thanks for posting the links.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Shiv can you send a copy of this and the first book Sartha through the visitor please?


Book review in Pioneer of S. Bhyrappa's new novel, 18 Dec 2007
India's Da Vinci Code

Bibliophile: NS Rajaram

Aavarana, SL Bhyrappa, Sahitya Bhandara, Rs 175

SL Bhyrappa's latest Kannada novel, Aavarana, is making waves beyond the usual literary circles. In less than a month four print runs have been sold out and the book is now in its fifth printing. What is interesting is that though a historical novel, its impact seems to be no less socio-political than literary. In this regard, it is a literary phenomenon like Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses and Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code.

In reading Aavarana, Dan Brown's novel, Da Vinci Code, springs to mind. Both have as their subject the suppression of true history and the propagation of a myth by powerful interests. In Da Vinci Code, the villain is the Catholic Church and its modern secret and sinister arm the Opus Dei. In Bhyrappa's novel, the villain is the collective of politically correct historians and 'intellectuals' who out of a combination of greed and fear have suppressed the truth about Islam and its record in India. While these intellectuals -- called dhimmis by the Egypt-born scholar Bat Ye'or -- can boast of no Vatican or Opus Dei, they do form a powerful clique enjoying the support of successive Governments. They find it politically expedient to appease Islam and conceal the truth about its record and teachings.

The word aavarana is the antonym of anaavarana, which means to reveal or to open. Aavarana, thus, means to conceal and suppress the truth by covering it with a layer of false myths.

In his preface, Bhyrappa states: "This is my second historical novel. My earlier work, Saartha, was an attempt to portray in novel form the transitional period (from the old to the medieval) that took place in the eighth century AD. In Aavarna, I have made a similar attempt for the long period after Saartha to the present. This period of Indian history, though rich in records, is in the grip of aavarana (concealment and suppression) forces... As things stand today, forces of aavarana hold both the historian and history in their grip. How can historical truth flourish when the historian stands as the main barrier to its discovery?"

Bhyrappa is a serious thinker who has studied the subject, often going to the primary sources and major research works. His bibliography is quite extensive for a novel and artfully introduced as part of the narrative. A surprising omission, however, is the eight-volume magnum opus, History of India as Told by Its Own Historians, which was compiled by Eliot and Dowson.

It is to Bhyrappa's credit that he has gone beyond superficialities by tracing the horrors of Islamic rule and jihad to the sources themselves -- the Quran and the Hadith. He has consulted several Islamic scholars and lived with Muslim friends to learn how Indian Muslims today practice their faith and relate to their history. As a result, Aavarana is more than a novel about Muslim India; it is also a primer on the beliefs and practices that condition the life and thought of Indian Muslims.

Aavarana narrates the story of a Rajput prince and his wife captured in the siege of Deoghar and turned into slaves in Muslim courts during the time of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, who ruled between 1659 and 1707. He later accompanies a Mughal officer and witnesses the destruction of the great Vishwanath Temple in Banares. He also witnesses the horrors inflicted by Mughals on Hindus and leaves a record of it.

To bring out how these horrors are whitewashed and even concealed by modern negationists, Bhyrappa introduces a contemporary character, Lakshmi-Razia -- a Muslim convert who returns to Hinduism after being shocked to learn the truth about India's Islamic past. She receives her first jolt when she visits the famous ruins of Vijayanagar (destroyed in 1565), now a World Heritage Site, as a scriptwriter for a documentary. Soon her father, whom she had not seen since her conversion to Islam, dies and she inherits his papers. She finds that in her absence, her father had made a detailed study of Islam and its record in India. Using his notes, she writes and publishes the novel about the captured Rajput prince in Mughal service noted earlier.

This lands Lakshmi-Razia in trouble, beginning with her former colleagues and friends, especially her mentor, one Prof Shastry. Her novel has blown their cover and they use their influence to have the novel banned and she is forced to go into hiding. In this, Bhyrappa has given a hint of what may befall his own novel for the same crime: He has exposed the horrors to a wide audience and also punctured the scholarly pretensions of jihad apologists masquerading as intellectuals.

With this novel, Bhyrappa has produced a major literary work distinguished by exceptional skill, scholarship and courage. One hopes it will soon be translated into other languages and made available to a wide audience. Of one thing we may be sure: Aavarana will be "cussed and discussed" for a long time to come, to borrow a phrase from Abraham Lincoln.

-- The reviewer, a scientist and historian, has recently written, along with David Frawley, Hidden Horizons: 10,000 Years of Indian Civilisation
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Timing is everything.

a) remember that murderer Shah Walullah has an award in his name

b) Keep some links and refs ready until the time is right.

The time to expose this butcher will be when Muslim extremists and dhimmis protest the honoring of someone. Or if Modi for example gets refused any visas, the time would be appropriate to rake up this issue.

That is when the media and airwaves - at least to the extent we have in our control (eg online letters to the editor) should be filled with information of how we spinelessly allow the institution of an award in the name of a murderer and protest the honoring of a Hindu.

We have always allowed that to happen.. For example, Omar Khalidi, wrote a book in which he called Sardar Patel a known bigot. This has been allowed to pass without a chirp by the dhimmis who read his book. My review of the book is on BR - although my language is mild in an era when being more vehement than that was not possible

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... andv2.html

Islam never shies away from muckraking or discussing in great detail things that are considered "sensitive" by others. That is its great strength and it must be copied. Islam for example does not shy away from asking how a man must clean his penis before going to the mosque for prayer if he has had sex just before doing that.

What is amazing about this is that islam tells you that it is quite OK to be doing hukku-pukku just before prayer time, but better get up and not miss prayer just because you have been busy. Missing prayers means that you will invite punishment sooner or later.
asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Post by asprinzl »

shiv wrote:Timing is everything.

a) remember that murderer Shah Walullah has an award in his name

b) Keep some links and refs ready until the time is right.

The time to expose this butcher will be when Muslim extremists and dhimmis protest the honoring of someone. Or if Modi for example gets refused any visas, the time would be appropriate to rake up this issue.

That is when the media and airwaves - at least to the extent we have in our control (eg online letters to the editor) should be filled with information of how we spinelessly allow the institution of an award in the name of a murderer and protest the honoring of a Hindu.

We have always allowed that to happen.. For example, Omar Khalidi, wrote a book in which he called Sardar Patel a known bigot. This has been allowed to pass without a chirp by the dhimmis who read his book. My review of the book is on BR - although my language is mild in an era when being more vehement than that was not possible

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... andv2.html

Islam never shies away from muckraking or discussing in great detail things that are considered "sensitive" by others. That is its great strength and it must be copied. Islam for example does not shy away from asking how a man must clean his penis before going to the mosque for prayer if he has had sex just before doing that.

What is amazing about this is that islam tells you that it is quite OK to be doing hukku-pukku just before prayer time, but better get up and not miss prayer just because you have been busy. Missing prayers means that you will invite punishment sooner or later.
Probably folks on here sould associate him with Wahab dude like "Shah Waliullah-The Original Master of Wahabism". Constantly repeat this till it slowly seeps into people's system.

Avram
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

surinder wrote:
Johann wrote:It seems highly likely that Musharraf following failure at Kargil in 1999 adopted a similar model of building and sustaining an Pan-India jihadist insurgency, which he has prioritised even over Kashmir.
Johann:

Interesting. What is Musharraff's aim in making this change? Why did he change? Is he achiveing his goal?

Thanks.

Surinder
The Pakistani fear has always been that if the economic/diplomatic/military/internal cohesion gap between India and Pakistan widens beyond a certain point, Pakistan will either be destroyed from the outside, or collapse under internal pressures.

Pakistan's original choice was a military arms race, but that isnt something that its relationships are strong enough to maintain.

Its next choice was separatist regional insurgencies, but those have also led to near-war situations in which Pakistan lacked diplomatic and military support to face down.

Ayodhya 1992 was a turning point for the Pakistanis because that is when they recognised that the Hindu-Muslim struggle within India as a whole was a viable and exploitable option.

It became clear after Kargil even to someone with an overinflated view of his own prowess like Musharraf that

(a) The Pakistani hope of a great power intervening before a war goes seriously bad and maintaining a balance at the negotiating table doesnt exist.

(b) the conventional balance had changed to the point that Pakistan could not hold the Indians even in a very limited campaign despite the advantages of strategic surprise and the commanding heights. To make a very rough analogy its as if India had sneaked up on to the heights of Siachen in 1983 without the Pakistanis knowing, and then managed to lose them to a Pakistani counter-attack.

(c) that the Indian state and the Indian public is much more coherent in its response to state vs. state confrontations than internal disturbances.

So while Pakistan continues to attempt to play the arms race and regional separatism cards, they are weak cards. The pan-India Islamist/communal card is the strongest one they have left against India.

- Is it 'succeeding'? Depends on how you define 'success'.

I think Musharraf's plan of mobilising SIMI to fan terror, violence and extremism across the country, to heighten and harden communal conflict, and to intensify friction between non-Muslims in India is succeeding. Pakistan has not had to account to India or any other country for this.

However, these developments havent yet paralysed governance or tarnished India's image to the point that it has stunted economic growth or restricted India's ability to put together strategic partnerships that come at Pakistan's cost.

This mixed success in some ways a reflection of jihadi performance worldwide. Shock, but not awe, hardening of both Muslim and non-Muslim attitudes, and laying the conditions for spiralling internal violence in a number of societies that in the longer term will probably hurt the soft Islamists and the non-Muslim doves and dhimmis the most.
surinder wrote:BUT, something more will happen too (in my prediciton). Arab lands will descend into poverty because of either oil/gas drying up or alternative sources of energy being developed. This will plunge Arabs (especially Saudi) into a state of discord and internal strife. A large population with no skills will turn inwards in its fights. All violent movements ultimately turn inwards (including crime mafias). They center of Izlam will turn in a cesspool of conflict. This will leave the jihadist foot soldiers in the periphery (India, especially) at a loss. This will undermine their entire world-view more than simple failures of jihad. This will make this round of Izlam going to sleep different. It may actually be a fatal blow and izlam may not rise again.

...Your take?
You can be dirt poor, and still essentially get people to pay to not fall apart by threatening their welfare.

It's like the transexual gangs on the streets of some cities in India you have to pay not to touch you or hang around your wedding.

North Korea is a great example of this - by threatening to go suicidally berserk and/or collapse and set South Korea back 30 years, they've extracted hefty aid packages and all sorts of free passes from Seoul.

A combination of WMDs, threats to maritime trade (Tangiers-Tripoli, Suez, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, etc), the challenge of stemming avalanches of illegal immigration and assorted smuggling would allow the Arab world to remain at the international table, but much, much weaker of course.

The loss of petro-wealth will undermine the speed and scale with which jihadist ideology can be exported, but it will not end the process, only make it a somewhat easier to isolate and contain Islamist outbursts.

The 'Islamic revival' that produced Wahhab, Syed Ahmed and the future Deobandis in India, the Santri wars in Sumatra, etc in the early 1800s came out of Medina at a time when there was no powerful state patronising jihad.

The Arabs were really nothing between 1000-1750; mostly ruled by Turks and converted slaves from the Caucasus and Balkans. That did not stop jihad around the world.

Back then one of the biggest vectors were actually the orthodox sufi brotherhoods like the Naqshbandis - Sufi brotherhoods are well designed to act as secret societies when the state is strong, or when conditions permit, a framework for mass-mobilisation. That is why Hassan el-Banna who founded the Muslim Brotherhood modeled it on one.
SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1938
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Post by SRoy »

Johann wrote:So while Pakistan continues to attempt to play the arms race and regional separatism cards, they are weak cards. The pan-India Islamist/communal card is the strongest one they have left against India.

- Is it 'succeeding'? Depends on how you define 'success'.

I think Musharraf's plan of mobilising SIMI to fan terror, violence and extremism across the country, to heighten and harden communal conflict, and to intensify friction between non-Muslims in India is succeeding. Pakistan has not had to account to India or any other country for this.

However, these developments havent yet paralysed governance or tarnished India's image to the point that it has stunted economic growth or restricted India's ability to put together strategic partnerships that come at Pakistan's cost.

This mixed success in some ways a reflection of jihadi performance worldwide. Shock, but not awe, hardening of both Muslim and non-Muslim attitudes, and laying the conditions for spiralling internal violence in a number of societies that in the longer term will probably hurt the soft Islamists and the non-Muslim doves and dhimmis the most.
Playing out the Pan-Islamism card also means that Pakis have run out of all other options or their returns are diminishing.

But an honest appraisal requires us to look beyond Pakistan. Will not any other of India's adversary exploit such a fault line in the the society? Pakistan just happens to be there in time and space.

The possible set of solutions for India's fight against Islamism are obvious.

Hardening of attitudes that you have noted will narrow down those choices for India in few years. Unless the gullible public gets swayed by some Indian leader masquerading as a self-styled Great Soul and end up getting their homes burnt and women raped, the Islamists will be rudely shocked in near future in India.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Johann wrote:Ayodhya 1992 was a turning point for the Pakistanis because that is when they recognised that the Hindu-Muslim struggle within India as a whole was a viable and exploitable option.
These turds did not need Ayodhya to figure that out!

Johann, your assertion of Ayodhya being the key marking event for TSP is interesting. It essentially restates what the fifth column in India asserts, that the so called "communal" parties' actions, have been responsible for the "takleef" that the IM's are facing. This "takleef" is being exploited by TSP to fan terrorist activity across India. Conclusion: If the so called hindu communal forces, were arrested, then the "takleef" will disappear and hence TSP meddling.

You know better that this is not the case. Maybe, I am not reading your statement correctly.

There is another view of Ayodhya. It is the event that marked the resurgence of Nationalist forces in India, leading to political victory in 1998. It is the event, that sent a shock wave across India along with corresponding globalization and economic forces. This shock wave woke up, many a sleeping Hindu dhimmi, including myself. Repulsed at the events at first, but after that repulsion, some started introspecting, as to what happenned and why?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Post by Singha »

I think Musharraf's plan of mobilising SIMI to fan terror, violence and extremism across the country, to heighten and harden communal conflict, and to intensify friction between non-Muslims in India is succeeding.

The Maoists are much more of a costly security headache because they
are dispersed all over the place and hard to corner in large numbers.
they are operate across the porous Nepal border and rural tracts where
security is not too strong or governance very efficient. they run camps where youths and women are trained that is proven. they dare to take over jehanabad town for a few hours. they are far more numerous than SIMI

A few hundred hardcore jihadis running around in india cities, with limited
access to explosives and with police constantly on their tail is imo not going to 'shake' India if that is the effect desired. if what is the scene today is the best pakis can do, then it wont cause loss of sleep in dilli durbar.

the gap continues to widen day after dreary day and the pakis are not
in a position to close it, they tried their best shot at a sweet 30 yr sugar daddy deal post-911 but it seems American support wont reach that levels. Massa is fine with starving and backward population so long as their Jarnail controls the street.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

More than Ayodhya it was the Mumbai riots and later blasts that exposed the divide. And we know that the Mumbai riots had local politicans interests/involvement to dislodge the sitting Chief Minister VP Naik. Still using SIMI is a self goal for the IM community and the thinking group among them know that. TSP represents all that is worst about Islamin India- the various divides and exploitation based on superiority complex. If these SIMI folks get to TSP they will find out where they fit in their scheme of things.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

This is a longish article folks. These are thoughts that have been bubbling inside me for weeks (some for years). I post them for critical review. All my opinions. All errors mine.

A lot has been written about Islamism, but what we see today is an Indian society that has been touched or ravaged by both Islamism and by the influence of British rule. Let me, for the sake of convenience, describe the overall influence of British rule on India as Macaulayism or the touch of Macaulay. Strictly speaking, Macaulay was not solely and wholly responsible for all British influence, but he certainly played an important role and his role has become synonymous with British influence in India.

Two societies interacting with each other can be likened to two galaxies colliding with each other. The exact effects are dependent on the individual effects of stars colliding or passing close to each other. The innumerable and multiple"micro effects" on a relatively small scale affect the macroscopic picture, just as the state of the trees affects the state of the forest.

It may be worth looking at each society first, and let me start with some basic differences and descriptions of British and European society versus Indian society.

Indian society developed over millennia to have more of a "collective consciousness". In India the individual came secondary to the collective. The health and welfare of the collective was put ahead of the personal likes and dislikes of the individual. The "arranged marriage" is a classic example of this. Indian society could be described as "a collection of groups of individuals" in contrast to British society which was "many individuals collected together sharing common traits under a common banner".

The difference between a society that was a "collection of groups of individuals" and another society that was "many individuals collected together sharing common traits under a common banner" may seem like mere semantics, but it is not. In the latter, individual will and action are given relatively more leeway. In Indian society, multiple groups displaying different behavior gave each other similar leeway and they did not destructively seek to exploit differences or impose unity in behavior. But within each of those groups, the individual was only given limited freedom of action. It was at the group level that groups gave each other the freedom to exist and be different. Individual action within the group was allowed only so long as it benefited, or fitted in well with the group.

While the commonality shared by individuals might have explained British unity as a nation, the British saw India as many nations because they failed to see the commonality that they expected in what they termed "India". The British saw groups that were different from other groups and saw in that a massively fractured society with multiple fissures that could be exploited.

Looked at in modern terms it is easy to judge Indian society harshly and say that "individual freedoms" were absent. After all, putting group before individual is characteristic of "primitive", tribal societies.

But for Hindus, individual freedom was defined in a different way. Hindu philosophy seems to have developed in such a way as to not destroy the collective "groups of individuals" structure of Indian society.Individual freedom was not obtained by rebellion and the abrupt or forced changing of societal rules to cater to individual tastes. Individual freedom was gained by looking inwards spiritually and considering life itself to be transient, with the attendant joys and sollows of life, its injustices and inequities as a temporary passing phase in an eternal, supra-human metaphysical existence. Nothing could have been more alien to the British.

When Islam came to India, the basic structure of Indian society was not disturbed. Hindu society's "collection of groups of individuals" may have gelled with Islam, or perhaps Islam's group behaviour was considered by Hindus "one more group" whose behaviour could be accepted by Hindus as an addition to all the Hindu groups that displayed different behavior. The control of individual behavior in Islam probably appeared outwardly similar in intent to the codes of individual behavior in existing Indian groups, and while Islam lacked in spirituality, the group that constituted Muslims was free to lack spirituality if they wished, while Islam itself could do little to prevent or change the inward looking spirituality of Hindus. Hindus bent and accommodated Islam despite its excesses, and Islam slotted itself in by merely eliminating and subduing any opposition. Islam probably did not need to eliminate all Hindus as they may well have allowed in Islam as they allowed survival and coexistence of many groups showing different (and sometimes weird) behavior in a society that had evolved to allow just that.

This was when the British came to India. The British looked at India through the lens of their own society and instantly recognized what they considered as fissures that could be exploited. Differences in group behavior, and group attitudes that had been accepted without insight or questioning among Indians as part and parcel of their existence were studied, documented and tabulated. Some types of hitherto unquestioned Indian behavior was declared unjust or plainly illegal and were treated as such. A Hindu tendency to accept or categorize something as just another mode of behavior ("They are like that only") became illegal in some instances. The Thugee "cult" is one example of this. Gradually, Indians developed a consciousness of themselves and their behavior in a manner that they had never done before. Indian individuals who had never considered rebellion, and who had culturally accepted their circumstances without rebellion as "things that just had to be the way they were" began to understand that things could be different, and British law facilitated change in attitudes and rebellion in Indian society in all the areas that they considered wrong, primitive or unjust.

For those who have studied some physics,there is an uncanny similarity in the concept of "Schrodinger's cat" and what happened to Indian society. Subatomic particles are predicted to exist in many different states at the same time.The particle exists in all of those states at any given time. But if it is observed and "pinned down" as being in any one of those states the particle no longer exists as before. Its existence is only in "all possible states", and it is destroyed by pinning it down to one state. Indian society existed in all possible states with all sorts of variable combinations of thought and behavior ranging from the "best" to the "worst". Once the British came and pinned it down by their description, categorization and classification, Indian society ceased to exist as it had done before. It was changed forever.

The recognition of, and the creation of a consciousness among Indians of differences and layers in Indian society and the branding of some of these differences as just or unjust initially had a positive and promoting effect on British rule. People who saw themselves as "wronged" could be split away from others, and measures instituted to right those wrongs while the British consolidated their position.

This resulted in a situation akin to a bubbling cauldron in Indian society in which different groups vied for changes in status in a myriad rebellions against their condition, leading to a situation described by Naipaul as "a million mutinies". And it was one of these mutinies that gave rise to the consciousness of an Islam in India as distinct from Hindu India - a thought process that was encouraged and utilized by the British,and which eventually led to the formation of Pakistan. While the situation initially favored British rule, in the long term, it was the very changing of Indian consciousness of Indians that eventually led to the loss of the jewel in the British crown and the fall of the British empire.

Indian society responded to the "new consciousness of differences and injustice" as it has always done. It did not rebel against this new information. It accepted it, and bent and accommodated, changing things in order to preserve. Sati is bad? OK get rid of it. Thugee is bad? OK get rid of it. Caste differences are bad? OK Start getting rid of them. By bending to British views of Indian differences, Indian society bent to pressure the way it has always done, and gradually tended to remove all the fissures that the British had recognized and either exploited or tried to change. And when fissures were removed, what was left was a society that was less disunited by small-group differences in the way it had been when the British first came. Indians discovered that they could unite in larger groups, and that led to the discovery of a larger group consciousness that eventually led to the concept of an Indian nation.

I believe that Islam may have been fully incorporated in this Indian nation had Islam itself not chosen (as it is programmed to do) to differentiate and segregate itself. Pakistan was both a victory of Islam and a self goal by Islam. But it is incumbent upon what remains of Islam in India to consciously understand that Islam will be considered by Indian society as "just another group" within India to be as it wants provided Muslims (i.e islam) allow other Indian groups their leeway and their freedom to be as they choose to be. The Muslims of India have been given exactly that offer. An Islam that rebels against a far older and more changeably stable structure of Indian society will either be bent or kicked out.
Last edited by shiv on 20 Dec 2007 05:38, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

ShauryaT wrote:
There is another view of Ayodhya. It is the event that marked the resurgence of Nationalist forces in India, leading to political victory in 1998.
I will rephrase this view using civilizational terms and the language i have used in my article above.

Both Ayodhya and the post-Godhra riots are indicative of a new consciousness, a new rebellion among Hindus that they need to accept blame for all Islamic grievances and need to be forever pushed into apology about themselves. groups in India society ask for space, and will give space in return.

But if they are pushed out of their own space they will rebel in the manner that British influence taught them was possible. They will fight, and not accept as inevitable and eternal as they were wont to do before the British introduced a concept of self-consciousness.

Musharraf's conclusions regarding SIMI notwithstanding - it will not only be Mushy's ass on fire but SIMIs as well.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Doc, Are you sure you are a doctor of medicine only?

Congratulations for describing the Indian group dynamics to a T. Yes many medieval Indian accounts considered Islam in India as another group though more powerful and a process of adjustment was happening. Yes the British had a role in accenting the differeences in the groups. However they were only an agent of change and not the sole creators of those differences.They were the catalyst/medium of these changes that transformed Hindu and Indian society. The problem is the DIE thinks that these differences are a stick to beat the Hindus into reforming/conforming per the departed British and now American values. Ayodhya and Modi phenomenon are examples of Hindu "Never Again". They are more reactions to the DIE actions than IMs.

I would like you to write this up and publish in as many news media as possible.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

ramana wrote: I would like you to write this up and publish in as many news media as possible.
Thx ramana. You will hear about this offline.
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16267
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Post by SwamyG »

Doctor Sahib:
Wah Wah brilliant. If you were standing in front of me, I would fall at your feet and get your blessings (i.e. if you are an elder to me). In tamil I would say "Kalakteenga saar".

You have the uncanny ability to articulate the lurking thoughts of several members into a lucid write-up. I would rate the following paragraph as the BIGGEST jewel on the crown:
But for Hindus, individual freedom was defined in a different way. Hindu philosophy seems to have developed in such a way as to not destroy the collective "groups of individuals" structure of Indian society.Individual freedom was not obtained by rebellion and the abrupt or forced changing of societal rules to cater to individual tastes. Individual freedom was gained by looking inwards spiritually and considering life itself to be transient, with the attendant joys and sollows of life, its injustices and inequities as a temporary passing phase in an eternal, supra-human metaphysical existence. Nothing could have been more alien to the British.
You say less freedom was offered to an individual within the group. But we have had rebels all the time. Some rose and shone: For example what is now called the Heterodox school of Indian philosophy. My point is that the individuals still found opportunities to splinter out from their group and form different groups. Once a group broke out, then all the group dynamics you describe came back into picture. One reason why I believe most of the Indians do not see it odd for individuals in a political party to split and form splinter groups. They take it as "Chalta hai" {in tamil: sagajam appa - meaning: just normal}
Locked